I think that this probably applies widely and is a good reminder to interact well, especially with posts and people I appreciate (I think that Iāll try to send more PMs to people who I think are constantly writing well on the forum and may be under-appreciated).
Yeah, that sounds to me like it could be handy!
It also wouldāve been useful (or at least comforting) if Iād known that, if I was doing badly and seemed to be a bad fit, Iād get a clear indication of that. (Itād obviously suck to hear it, but thenI could move on to other pursuits.) Otherwise it felt hard to update in either direction. But I think itās much easier and less risky to just make it more likely that people would get clear indications when they are doing well than when they arenāt, for a wide range of reasons (including that even people who are capable of being great at something might not clearly display that capability right away).
Generally, though, it seems like you didnāt find engagement with the content itself very useful, which is about what Iād have guessed but unfortunate to hear.
I think I agree with what you mean, but that this phrasing give someone the wrong impression. I definitely appreciated the engagement that did occur, and often found it useful. The problems were more that:
Often there just wasnāt much engagement. Maybe like some upvotes, 0-1 downvotes, 0-4 short comments.
Itās very hard to distinguish āThese 3 positive comments are from the 3 out of (letās say) 25 readers who had an unusually positive opinion about this or want to be welcoming, and the others thought this sort-of sucked but couldnāt be bothered saying so or didnāt want to be meanā from āThese 3 positive comments are totally sincere, and the other (letās say) 22 readers also thought this was great but didnāt bother commenting or felt itād be weird to just comment āthis is great!ā without saying moreā
And thatās not the fault of those 3 commenters. And it would feel harsh to say itās the fault of the (perhaps imagined) other 22 readers either.
(btw, reminding you to link to this comment from here)
Yeah, that sounds to me like it could be handy!
It also wouldāve been useful (or at least comforting) if Iād known that, if I was doing badly and seemed to be a bad fit, Iād get a clear indication of that. (Itād obviously suck to hear it, but thenI could move on to other pursuits.) Otherwise it felt hard to update in either direction. But I think itās much easier and less risky to just make it more likely that people would get clear indications when they are doing well than when they arenāt, for a wide range of reasons (including that even people who are capable of being great at something might not clearly display that capability right away).
I think I agree with what you mean, but that this phrasing give someone the wrong impression. I definitely appreciated the engagement that did occur, and often found it useful. The problems were more that:
Often there just wasnāt much engagement. Maybe like some upvotes, 0-1 downvotes, 0-4 short comments.
Itās very hard to distinguish āThese 3 positive comments are from the 3 out of (letās say) 25 readers who had an unusually positive opinion about this or want to be welcoming, and the others thought this sort-of sucked but couldnāt be bothered saying so or didnāt want to be meanā from āThese 3 positive comments are totally sincere, and the other (letās say) 22 readers also thought this was great but didnāt bother commenting or felt itād be weird to just comment āthis is great!ā without saying moreā
And thatās not the fault of those 3 commenters. And it would feel harsh to say itās the fault of the (perhaps imagined) other 22 readers either.
Thanks! Done.